Quote:
Originally Posted by Youchka  In your whole really long post, on each point, you claim it could be this but it also could be that. So which one is it? It is in no way convincing. |
i did not go into more nitty gritty details because it would have made my long boring post even longer and more boring. by the way, that's what distinguishes the languid long and boring but probable scientific style from the pizzazz laden one of short yet flammable and improbable conspiracies theories, but since u asked for more details in ur follow up questions, i'll happily oblige u.
now things depend on who is being convinced by what. if u think for instance that it's more probable that the twin towers were rigged to collapse rather than that the buildings were hit then as an after effect collapsed then we are from two completely different audiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youchka How do you explain Guliani's statement that the tower WILL fall? |
yeah, it's a statement, he's not nostradamus, there was something going on with that nb 7 building, we don't know what exactly, but there is a first thing for everything, it doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that it was rigged to blow up. if anyone can make that baseless claim and get away with it then i can make the following baseless claim : "the building had collapsed because a third plane crashed into it. now, seeing that there is no proof that a third plane crashed into in, let alone someone rigged it to blow up, i don't see why i should cherish one conspiracy theory over another here. in the pentagon case we have witnesses and a convincing destruction point of entry plus the right of the pentagon to withhold all the information it wants. tough luck..
now, the fact that we don't know the answer to something doesn't necessarily mean that WE MUST MAKE UP THAT ANSWER to please our curiosity. patience is a virtue here that conspiracy theorists lack.
they see a light in the sky and automatically know that it is grey aliens.
their forefathers "knew" that they were flying gods, and even their great great grandfathers knew that these lights were even flying monkeys.
no one bothers to take his time to figure things out, go tell a denizen of rome or a cave that the moving lights in the sky are small meteors, electric fireballs, electromagnetic fields and optical effects and he will tell u that u are not admitting the obvious that the lights are gods or flying monkeys.
the same applies for tower nb7, in the most positive outlook for the conspiracy theorists we will find that the cause of that tower going down is unknown. note "unknown", it's very different from "rigged".
Rudy said something out of concern, what he said could have been probable, and it could have been less probable, but it didn't take a miracle for him to come up with the notion that the building was risky and probably going down when it was ON FIRE and god knows what else.
i am not being apologetic here, no, i'm just pointing out that it is clearly more probable that this is what happened instead of that alternative weirdo explanation. that's Occam's Razor for u, Occam's Razor doesn't imply that the stupidest answers are the correct one, it implies that the answers based on the lesser amount of "assumptions" are "probably" the more correct ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youchka And regarding the debris thing, what do you mean from which angle the camera took it? So all cameras and all reporters and all journalists o the ground did not see ONE small tiny proof of the plane, anything, no steel, no remains, nothing. So planes hitting the ground get pulvarized as never having been there? |
i didn't say that the images were manipulated, no sir (or mrs), i clearly implied that images do not tell the whole story. and then i gave more probable explanations for why there weren't that many debris. it's nothing new in that field i assure u.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youchka And what about the Pentagon? Where was this plane? Some say there are thousands of cameras all around the Pentagon, you can't breathe in the vicinity without being photographed, so where the heck is it? |
k, do tell me why the pentagon, the security hq of the hell that is america, is going, or can be coerced, to show u pics that pertain to its security ?
if the pentagon refuses to show u those pics for his internal reasons, what does that prove exactly ? absolutely nothing, that's the real and sad fact.
the difference between what i want to believe and what i can accept as reasonable belief is very different here.
so if they don't show us the pics it proves what again ?? a cover up ? a cover up for what? their internal security issues ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youchka And no one is mixing movies with reality. This September 11 lie has given the green light to Bush to do all what he did. Without it it would have been IMPOSSIBLE, and if you think taht administrations like Bush's rely on coincidence, then you are wrong, these people plan decades ahead. |
everybody is mixing movies/fairy tales with reality, or else how would u explain that the vast majority of humans on this planet believe in gods that couldn't possible exist? ppl want to believe, but that aint gonna change facts.
and for GW Bush abusing the incident ? well, heck ya, he abused it for his own political agenda, just go look up the history of not only america but all the countries of the world in this respect, all of them abuse incidents to get to other means but that doesn't mean that all of them instigate those incidents themselves!
If u want an incident to start ur own political agenda look no further, all the powers do that dirty game but it doesn't mean they did it to themselves always.
it's probable though, there is no denying it, but without proof, conspiracy theories ain't no theories at all , they are urban myth and legends.
and finally, instead of asking ourselves those convoluted questions of how did the americans do this to themselves like scratching our heads from the way back forward, let us ask what were the liabilities and shortcomings of the US institutions in this respect.
it's very similar to the insanity that we have right here in lebanon.
some ppl tell u syria is behind the killings, other say it's israel or the lost ppl of Atlantis, but without proof, without investigation those words amount to nothing really. c'est la vis, what can i say.
the investigation that was done into the 9/11 incident was way more sane and reasonable than the ones that independent paranoid "free-thinkers" like to think that they have pinned down. they have no proof, they have assumptions.
their weakness is their problem, they cannot expect others to follow suit blindly like that.
20th February 2008
